Ex Parte Shihadeh

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2011

11098153 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ELIAS SHIHADEH
____________

Appeal 2009-009800
Application 11/098,153
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III,
and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-009800
Application 11/098,153

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Reverse.

Representative Claim
1. A method comprising:
quantifying a number of periodic pulses occurring during
an execution of one or more instructions by a processor; and
adjusting an available depth of branch predictions based
on a comparison of the number of periodic pulses to a
predefined value.

Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buyuktosunoglu (US 2002/0053038 A1) and Jain
(US 5,553,255).

Claims 1-8
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal regarding
claims 1-8:
Appeal 2009-009800
Application 11/098,153

3
Under § 103, did the Examiner err in determining that the
combination of Buyuktosunoglu and Jain would have
taught or suggested adjusting an available depth of
branch predictions based on a comparison of the number
of periodic pulses to a predefined value, within the
meaning of independent claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jain teaches a special purpose register, accessible to the
programmer, that generates three node bits. (Col. 9 ll. 34-37).

2. The Examiner states that “changing the size of any one of
the dispatch buffer, the branch queue or the user-
programmable prefetch mode bits, or changing several of
them in combination, would change the “available depth
of branch predictions.” (Ans. 35).

3. The Examiner further contends that the branch prediction
table, dispatch buffer, and/or branch queue and the value
of the prefetch mode bits, determine the number of
branch predictions that can be stored/held. Therefore, the
“available depth of branch predictions” is “adjusted.”
(Id.).

4. The Examiner interprets the claimed “available depth of
branch predictions” as the number of branch predictions
that can be held at one time. (Id.).
Appeal 2009-009800
Application 11/098,153

4
ANALYSIS
The Examiner acknowledges that the primary Buyuktosunoglu
reference does not teach the disputed limitation. (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner
looks to the secondary Jain reference for teaching or suggesting adjusting an
available depth of branch predictions based on a comparison of the number
of periodic pulses to a predefined value, within the meaning of independent
claim 1. (Ans. 9-10) See also FF 4.
Appellant contends that Jain (and therefore the cited combination of
references) does not teach that the maximum number of unresolved branch
instructions is adjusted based on any criteria. Instead, Jain actually teaches
that the maximum number of unresolved branch instructions is configured
based on a user-programmable special purpose register. Thus, further
prefetching is prevented once a predetermined/programmed maximum
number of unresolved branch instructions has been reached. (App. Br. 8).
Based upon our review of the evidence, we find Appellant’s
arguments persuasive. As pointed out by the Appellant, we agree that
according to Jain, the depth of the unresolved branch instructions is not
adjusted. Instead, the special purpose register predefines or sets (i.e., is user
programmable) the maximum number of unresolved branch instructions (FF
1-3), and is not adjusted based upon a comparison, or any other criteria.
Moreover, we observe that the language of claim 1 expressly requires that
the available depth is adjusted based on a comparison of the number of
periodic pulses to a predefined value. (Claim 1). We agree with Appellant
that the cited references do not teach nor fairly suggest this limitation.
Appeal 2009-009800
Application 11/098,153

5
Based on this record, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, as well as associated dependent claims 2-8.

Claims 9-13
We note that independent claim 9 recites a limitation similar to the
comparison of the number of periodic pulses to a predefined value, as
discussed supra regarding claim 1. Specifically, claim 9 recites that the
available speculative branch prediction depth is adjusted based on the
instruction execution efficiency. For the reasons discussed above regarding
claim 1 and also for the reasons argued by Appellant (App. Br. 12-13), we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9 and associated
dependent claims 10-13.

Claims 14-20
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal regarding
claims 14-20:

ISSUE
Under § 103, did the Examiner err in determining that the
combination of Buyuktosunoglu and Jain would have
taught or suggested a “depth adjustment module [that] is
further operable to adjust the first value between cycles
of instructions based on a comparison of a first number
of pulses per instruction received from the shifter for a
first cycle of instructions to a second number
of pulses per instruction received from the shifter for a
Appeal 2009-009800
Application 11/098,153

6
second cycle of instructions subsequent to the first cycle
of instructions,” within the meaning of independent claim
14? (emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
We observe that independent claim 14 recites a depth adjustment
module that performs an adjustment based upon a comparison of pulses,
similar to our discussion supra regarding claim 1. For the reasons discussed
above regarding claim 1 and also for the reasons argued by Appellant (App.
Br. 15-17), we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 and
associated dependent claims 15-20.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1-20.

ORDER
REVERSED

pgc

LARSON NEWMAN & ABEL, LLP
5914 WEST COURTYARD DRIVE
SUITE 200
AUSTIN, TX 78730